Maurits W. van Tulder

Updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the cochrane collaboration back review group.

Study Design. Descriptive method guidelines. Objectives. To help reviewers design, conduct, and report reviews of trials in the field of back and neck pain. Summary of Background Data. In 1997, the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group published method guidelines for systematic reviews. Since its publication, new methodologic evidence emerged and more experience was acquired in conducting reviews. Methods. All reviews and protocols of the Back Review Group were assessed for compliance with the 1997 method guidelines. Also, the most recent version of the Cochrane Handbook (4.1) was checked for new recommendations. In addition, some important topics that were not addressed in the 1997 method guidelines were included (e.g., methods for qualitative analysis, reporting of conclusions, and discussion of clinical relevance of the results). In May 2002, preliminary results were presented and discussed in a workshop. In two rounds, a list of all possible recommendations and the final draft were circulated for comments among the editors of the Back Review Group. Results. The recommendations are divided in five categories: literature search, inclusion criteria, methodologic quality assessment, data extraction, and data analysis. Each recommendation is classified in minimum criteria and further guidance. Additional recommendations are included regarding assessment of clinical relevance, and reporting of results and conclusions. Conclusions. Systematic reviews need to be conducted as carefully as the trials they report and, to achieve full impact, systematic reviews need to meet high methodologic standards.

2009 updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group.

Study Design. Method guidelines for systematic reviews of trials of treatments for neck and back pain. Objective. To help review authors design, conduct and report systematic reviews of trials in this field. Summary of Background Data. In 1997, the Cochrane Back Review Group published Method Guidelines for Systematic Reviews, which was updated in 2003. Since then, new methodologic evidence has emerged and standards have changed. Coupled with the upcoming revisions to the software and methods required by The Cochrane Collaboration, it was clear that revisions were needed to the existing guidelines. Methods. The Cochrane Back Review Group editorial and advisory boards met in June 2006 to review the relevant new methodologic evidence and determine how it should be incorporated. Based on the discussion, the guidelines were revised and circulated for comment. As sections of the new Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions were made available, the guidelines were checked for consistency. A working draft was made available to review authors in The Cochrane Library 2008, issue 3. Results. The final recommendations are divided into 7 categories: objectives, literature search, inclusion criteria, risk of bias assessment, data extraction, data analysis, and updating your review. Each recommendation is classified into minimum criteria (mandatory) and further guidance (optional). Instead of recommending Levels of Evidence, this update adopts the GRADE approach to determine the overall quality of the evidence for important patient-centered outcomes across studies and includes a new section on updating reviews. Conclusion. Citations of previous versions of the method guidelines in published scientific articles (1997: 254 citations; 2003: 209 citations, searched February 10, 2009) suggest that others may find these guidelines useful to plan, conduct, or evaluate systematic reviews in the field of spinal disorders.

Chapter 3 European guidelines for the management of acute nonspecific low back pain in primary care

Maurits van Tulder (chairman) Epidemiologist (NL) Annette Becker General practitioner (GER) Trudy Bekkering Physiotherapist (NL) Alan Breen Chiropractor (UK) Tim Carter Occupational physician (UK) Maria Teresa Gil del Real Epidemiologist (ESP) Allen Hutchinson Public Health Physician (UK) Bart Koes Epidemiologist (NL) Peter Kryger-Baggesen Chiropractor (DK) Even Laerum General practitioner (NO) Antti Malmivaara Rehabilitation physician (FIN) Alf Nachemson Orthopaedic surgeon (SWE) Wolfgang Niehus Orthopaedic / anesthesiologist (Aus) Etienne Roux Rheumatologist (SUI) Sylvie Rozenberg Rheumatologist (FR)

A Cost-Of-Illness Study of Back Pain in the Netherlands

&NA; In this study we estimated the costs of back pain to society in The Netherlands in 1991 to be 1.7% of the GNP. The results also show that musculoskeletal diseases are the fifth most expensive disease category regarding hospital care, and the most expensive regarding work absenteeism and disablement. One‐third of the hospital care costs and one‐half of the costs of absenteeism and disablement due to musculoskeletal disease were due to back pain. The total direct medical costs of back pain were estimated at US

An updated overview of clinical guidelines for the management of non-specific low back pain in primary care

367.6 million. The total costs of hospital care due to back pain constituted the largest part of the direct medical costs and were estimated at US

Systematic Review: Strategies for Using Exercise Therapy To Improve Outcomes in Chronic Low Back Pain

200 million. The mean costs of hospital care for back pain per case were US

Exercise therapy for low back pain : A systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group

3856 for an inpatient and US

Behavioral treatment for chronic low back pain: a systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane Back Review Group.

199 for an outpatient. The total indirect costs of back pain for the entire labour force in The Netherlands in 1991 were estimated at US

Acupuncture and Dry-Needling for Low Back Pain : An Updated Systematic Review Within the Framework of the Cochrane Collaboration

4.6 billion; US

A Consensus Approach Toward the Standardization of Back Pain Definitions for Use in Prevalence Studies

3.1 billion was due to absenteeism and US